Seems like the game has peaked on XFire

udorus · January 2012

well apart from the fact Bioware were dumb enough to take their servers offline on a Friday night, good job guys you really are learning this the hard way.

binary_0011 · January 2012

how to check top 10 games in xfire?

Rocketeer · January 2012

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26
That is false. Server loads =! server populations. Server loads measure how full the servers are. It doesn't measure the number of people on the server. Thus, it doesn't measure server populations.

Scientists also focus on controlling extraneous variables so that their tests measure what they want to measure. There are absolutely no controls set up outside of X-fire. Thus, using X-fire statistics outside of X-fire means they are inherently invalid. And, using invalid data means that your conclusion on that invalid data is invalid. No matter how much you want it to be so, it's still completely invalid.

Also, thanks for proving your agenda via the red. Keep on using your invalid data in any way you can so you can fulfill your self-serving agenda.

Wrong part in red, ofc you can still be right even with faulty data. You can even be right without any kind of data to back you up. Its called coincidence. Its actually quite common, infact the less data you use to form your opinion, and the simpler your thesis, the greater the chance to be right by coincidence <-- hypothesis right there. One example of that would be old greeks postulating the existance of atoms, but there are probably hundreds more. That is false. If you gave that same statement to any form of the scientific community you would be laughed out of the room.

That is your opinion, proof?

Thats also why a proper scientific approach always first and foremost focuses around creating a hypothesis and trying to disprove it by finding a case where it not applies. Exactly because discrediting the source is not proof of a hypothesis being wrong, after all it could still be right by coincidence! If you can find no way to disprove a hypothesis, then it stands. Doesn't mean its right, contrary to popular belief scientist are not so arrogant that they assume they are always right, but its still a valid thesis.

Thesis is also based on past scientific studies or the premise of the current study with controls in place to prevent as much extraneous variables as possible from preventing the scientists from measuring the results that they are aiming to measure. When using X-fire statistics within X-fire, there are controls in place (required usage of X-fire to actually record the hours played). However, there are absolutely no controls in place outside of X-fire when applying X-fire statistics outside of X-fire.

You are confusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_%28academic_document%29 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. Here is a quote for you:

"People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"^[7]^[8] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem."

Sounds exactly like what im talking about, the experimental part is where we just see how it goes by comparing the data from xfire with actual changes like new servers opening/old closing, official numbers etc.

Control is the prime part of measuring statistics. Lack of those controls = lack of any form of validity as there's no controls in place to prevent extraneous variables from altering what the person is trying to measure. That is something that the X-fire Fan brigade can't comprehend.

Ofc having full control helps immensely with the accuracy of statistics, nobody denies that. But if full control is impossible you make do with the next best thing and simply append a proper +- derivation to your data to make people aware of its limitations. If you don't know the derivation you guess it based on the information available, an example would be archelogist judging the age of very old fossilised organic materials, the derivation can be millions of years. And yeah sometimes you can be totally wrong because there where extraneous variables you didn't know about, but that shouldn't prevent you from trying anyway.

Its just pointless to ask for facts to prove someone right if you can't provide facts to prove them wrong. Xfire being not representative of general gamers doesn't disproof anything, unless you know how big the derivation between them is. Its not proof, its anecdotal evidence. There might be a derivation, or not ... it might make a difference, or not. We don't know, and thats half of science right there.

Stop with your Strawman tactics. They don't work. You all made the statements and continue to use X-fire. I, and many others have refuted them with actual scientific proceedures. So, the burden is on you.

What kind of scientific procedures are this? And what exactly did you prove? Fact is you don't know wether/how accurate xfire is in any particular case, noone of us does. Claiming that a sample size of many thousands of gamers would be wildly inaccurate is just as unlikely as them being(nearly) completely right. Both could happen to be, but i just consider it unlikely based on past experiences with xfire and gametrends.

Sometimes i wonder where the idea comes from that science is based around cold hard facts and provable data ... i blame hollywood. The real number of actual scientific theories(often called laws) that are widely accepted as truth is actually quite low(Law of Thermodynamics, invariance of speed of light, conversation of mass-energy and of momentum, electrostatic laws ... that about sums it up i think). Otherwise scientists kinda go with the flow and simply change theories if they prove wrong later on.

Hollywood has nothing to do with it. It's called textbooks, college courses, and actual participation in the scientific community. Things that pretty much say that your version of nilly-willy statistical analysis is wrong.

Its not my version, and its not for you to decide whats wrong or right. Like so often history will tell who was right and who was wrong, that being said both of us lack hard data.

If it makes you feel any better though, i would never settle for a measurement system like xfire if there was any other solution. But fact is the onlyones with hard data are guarding it closely, and we only have secondary resources like these. Of all the secondary resources available to us i feel xfire is the most accurate for shortterm developements, and there is no shame on basing your hypothesis on the best data available to you, even if its no completely accurate.

Like i said, its perfectly fine to do statistics like this, you just need to make people aware of the limitations your statistical data is based upon. For example it would be a perfectly fine to only ask only women between 18-21 about who they will vote for before an election and base an statistic analysis on that data. However if you try to extrapolate general election results the accuracy would be naturally alot less than asking a proper samplesize of men and women of all ages. That being said, if for some reason you could only ask those women, the result would still be more accurate than no statistic at all.

TL;DR: Xfire might be inaccurate, but its still better than no data at all which is what we have without it. And the absence of data never proves anything, apart from data for an analysis being missing.

P.S.: Inability to argue an hypothesis without personal attacks, or replacing arguments with the same, is not science.

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26
That is false. Server loads =! server populations. Server loads measure how full the servers are. It doesn't measure the number of people on the server. Thus, it doesn't measure server populations.

Scientists also focus on controlling extraneous variables so that their tests measure what they want to measure. There are absolutely no controls set up outside of X-fire. Thus, using X-fire statistics outside of X-fire means they are inherently invalid. And, using invalid data means that your conclusion on that invalid data is invalid. No matter how much you want it to be so, it's still completely invalid.

Also, thanks for proving your agenda via the red. Keep on using your invalid data in any way you can so you can fulfill your self-serving agenda.

Wrong part in red, ofc you can still be right even with faulty data. You can even be right without any kind of data to back you up. Its called coincidence. Its actually quite common, infact the less data you use to form your opinion, and the simpler your thesis, the greater the chance to be right by coincidence <-- hypothesis right there. One example of that would be old greeks postulating the existance of atoms, but there are probably hundreds more. That is false. If you gave that same statement to any form of the scientific community you would be laughed out of the room.

That is your opinion, proof?

No, it's a fact. Having no data to back up a hypothesis makes the hypothesis a pure guess. Hypothesis are built upon past studies. Therefore, they are not purely a guess. Again, you'd be laughed out of the room if you provided a baseless hypothesis (guess) to a any form of scientific community.

Thats also why a proper scientific approach always first and foremost focuses around creating a hypothesis and trying to disprove it by finding a case where it not applies. Exactly because discrediting the source is not proof of a hypothesis being wrong, after all it could still be right by coincidence! If you can find no way to disprove a hypothesis, then it stands. Doesn't mean its right, contrary to popular belief scientist are not so arrogant that they assume they are always right, but its still a valid thesis.

Thesis is also based on past scientific studies or the premise of the current study with controls in place to prevent as much extraneous variables as possible from preventing the scientists from measuring the results that they are aiming to measure. When using X-fire statistics within X-fire, there are controls in place (required usage of X-fire to actually record the hours played). However, there are absolutely no controls in place outside of X-fire when applying X-fire statistics outside of X-fire.

You are confusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_%28academic_document%29 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. Here is a quote for you:

"People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"^[7]^[8] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem."

Sounds exactly like what im talking about, the experimental part is where we just see how it goes by comparing the data from xfire with actual changes like new servers opening/old closing, official numbers etc.

Hypothesis are based on past studies. Studies that have controls built into them to measure the variables that the scientist wants to measure by removing as many of the extraneous variables as possible. There are absolutely no controls present to prevent extraneous variables from interfering with trying to use X-fire statistics outside of the X-fire userbase. Which, makes this a pure guess rather than an educated guess. Thus, it has no validity. That's a fact.

Control is the prime part of measuring statistics. Lack of those controls = lack of any form of validity as there's no controls in place to prevent extraneous variables from altering what the person is trying to measure. That is something that the X-fire Fan brigade can't comprehend.

Ofc having full control helps immensely with the accuracy of statistics, nobody denies that. But if full control is impossible you make do with the next best thing and simply append a proper +- derivation to your data to make people aware of its limitations. If you don't know the derivation you guess it based on the information available, an example would be archelogist judging the age of very old fossilised organic materials, the derivation can be millions of years. And yeah sometimes you can be totally wrong because there where extraneous variables you didn't know about, but that shouldn't prevent you from trying anyway.

You do not understand control when it comes to science. The blue highlighted phrase proves that. Using a +- derivation without actual scientific evidence to back it up is nothing more than an arbitrary guess. Again, further shoving it to the side of guessing rather than science. As to the red highlight, Archeologists use carbon dating, which is quite accurate, and an evolutionary chart that is further validated by carbon dating and geological evidence to back up their science. They don't go nilly-willy guessing that you are trying to claim they do.

Its just pointless to ask for facts to prove someone right if you can't provide facts to prove them wrong. Xfire being not representative of general gamers doesn't disproof anything, unless you know how big the derivation between them is. Its not proof, its anecdotal evidence. There might be a derivation, or not ... it might make a difference, or not. We don't know, and thats half of science right there.

Stop with your Strawman tactics. They don't work. You all made the statements and continue to use X-fire. I, and many others have refuted them with actual scientific proceedures. So, the burden is on you.

What kind of scientific procedures are this? And what exactly did you prove? Fact is you don't know wether/how accurate xfire is in any particular case, noone of us does. Claiming that a sample size of many thousands of gamers would be wildly inaccurate is just as unlikely as them being(nearly) completely right. Both could happen to be, but i just consider it unlikely based on past experiences with xfire and gametrends.

Fact is, I, and quite a few others have proven our case by poking T-rex sized holes in yours with scientific procedures.

Sometimes i wonder where the idea comes from that science is based around cold hard facts and provable data ... i blame hollywood. The real number of actual scientific theories(often called laws) that are widely accepted as truth is actually quite low(Law of Thermodynamics, invariance of speed of light, conversation of mass-energy and of momentum, electrostatic laws ... that about sums it up i think). Otherwise scientists kinda go with the flow and simply change theories if they prove wrong later on.

Hollywood has nothing to do with it. It's called textbooks, college courses, and actual participation in the scientific community. Things that pretty much say that your version of nilly-willy statistical analysis is wrong.

Its not my version, and its not for you to decide whats wrong or right. Like so often history will tell who was right and who was wrong, that being said both of us lack hard data.

If it makes you feel any better though, i would never settle for a measurement system like xfire if there was any other solution. But fact is the onlyones with hard data are guarding it closely, and we only have secondary resources like these. Of all the secondary resources available to us i feel xfire is the most accurate for shortterm developements, and there is no shame on basing your hypothesis on the best data available to you, even if its no completely accurate.

Using crappy data just makes the conclusion crappy.

Like i said, its perfectly fine to do statistics like this, you just need to make people aware of the limitations your statistical data is based upon. For example it would be a perfectly fine to only ask only women between 18-21 about who they will vote for before an election and base an statistic analysis on that data. However if you try to extrapolate general election results the accuracy would be naturally alot less than asking a proper samplesize of men and women of all ages. That being said, if for some reason you could only ask those women, the result would still be more accurate than no statistic at all.

Blue: Scientists would totally disagree with you on that statement. Faux science proves nothing.

Red: Again, more faux science. You are using a flawed sample and trying to apply it to the population. Scientists would laugh you out of the room if you tried to prevent this to them.

TL;DR: Xfire might be inaccurate, but its still better than no data at all which is what we have without it. And the absence of data never proves anything, apart from data for an analysis being missing.

Using crappy data just makes the conclusion crappy.

P.S.: Inability to argue an hypothesis without personal attacks, or replacing arguments with the same, is not science.

Please show me where I attacked you. Oh wait.... that was a falsehood spouted by you!

Vrika · January 2012

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26
That is false. Server loads =! server populations. Server loads measure how full the servers are. It doesn't measure the number of people on the server. Thus, it doesn't measure server populations.

Scientists also focus on controlling extraneous variables so that their tests measure what they want to measure. There are absolutely no controls set up outside of X-fire. Thus, using X-fire statistics outside of X-fire means they are inherently invalid. And, using invalid data means that your conclusion on that invalid data is invalid. No matter how much you want it to be so, it's still completely invalid.

Also, thanks for proving your agenda via the red. Keep on using your invalid data in any way you can so you can fulfill your self-serving agenda.

Wrong part in red, ofc you can still be right even with faulty data. You can even be right without any kind of data to back you up. Its called coincidence. Its actually quite common, infact the less data you use to form your opinion, and the simpler your thesis, the greater the chance to be right by coincidence <-- hypothesis right there. One example of that would be old greeks postulating the existance of atoms, but there are probably hundreds more. That is false. If you gave that same statement to any form of the scientific community you would be laughed out of the room.

That is your opinion, proof?

No, it's a fact. Having no data to back up a hypothesis makes the hypothesis a pure guess. Hypothesis are built upon past studies. Therefore, they are not purely a guess. Again, you'd be laughed out of the room if you provided a baseless hypothesis (guess) to a any form of scientific community.

Thats also why a proper scientific approach always first and foremost focuses around creating a hypothesis and trying to disprove it by finding a case where it not applies. Exactly because discrediting the source is not proof of a hypothesis being wrong, after all it could still be right by coincidence! If you can find no way to disprove a hypothesis, then it stands. Doesn't mean its right, contrary to popular belief scientist are not so arrogant that they assume they are always right, but its still a valid thesis.

Thesis is also based on past scientific studies or the premise of the current study with controls in place to prevent as much extraneous variables as possible from preventing the scientists from measuring the results that they are aiming to measure. When using X-fire statistics within X-fire, there are controls in place (required usage of X-fire to actually record the hours played). However, there are absolutely no controls in place outside of X-fire when applying X-fire statistics outside of X-fire.

You are confusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_%28academic_document%29 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. Here is a quote for you:

"People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"^[7]^[8] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem."

Sounds exactly like what im talking about, the experimental part is where we just see how it goes by comparing the data from xfire with actual changes like new servers opening/old closing, official numbers etc.

Hypothesis are based on past studies. Studies that have controls built into them to measure the variables that the scientist wants to measure by removing as many of the extraneous variables as possible. There are absolutely no controls present to prevent extraneous variables from interfering with trying to use X-fire statistics outside of the X-fire userbase. Which, makes this a pure guess rather than an educated guess. Thus, it has no validity. That's a fact.

Control is the prime part of measuring statistics. Lack of those controls = lack of any form of validity as there's no controls in place to prevent extraneous variables from altering what the person is trying to measure. That is something that the X-fire Fan brigade can't comprehend.

Ofc having full control helps immensely with the accuracy of statistics, nobody denies that. But if full control is impossible you make do with the next best thing and simply append a proper +- derivation to your data to make people aware of its limitations. If you don't know the derivation you guess it based on the information available, an example would be archelogist judging the age of very old fossilised organic materials, the derivation can be millions of years. And yeah sometimes you can be totally wrong because there where extraneous variables you didn't know about, but that shouldn't prevent you from trying anyway.

You do not understand control when it comes to science. The blue highlighted phrase proves that. Using a +- derivation without actual scientific evidence to back it up is nothing more than an arbitrary guess. Again, further shoving it to the side of guessing rather than science. As to the red highlight, Archeologists use carbon dating, which is quite accurate, and an evolutionary chart that is further validated by carbon dating and geological evidence to back up their science. They don't go nilly-willy guessing that you are trying to claim they do.....

You are trying to apply scientific methods from hard sciences to soft sciences.

Controlled environments and eliminating extraneous variables is good when studying simple human behaviour or interactions. But assuming you took a group of XFire users and non-XFire users into a controlled environment and eliminated all extraneous variables. You might well end up eliminating also the reason why one group started using XFire and the other did not in the first place. You'd have taken the human decision (to play SWTOR or to not to play) out of its normal context, and due to differences between the normal context with XFire users and non-XFire users, any results you'd gain in controlled environment would cease to apply to the groups you just studied when you'd let them out of that controlled environmen and into the open world with all its variables.

When predicting human behaviour in mass scale it's not possible to create the required controlled environments and take every variable into account. You're stuck with using statistics, polls, your own knowledge of human nature. And you can only verify your results with more statistics, polls, observations and inductive reasoning.

PS. And you've build so large a quote pyramid with so many colors, that there's no way for me to tell who has said what in your discussion.

Rocketeer · January 2012

@Vato

1. You are making a prediction of the behaviour of a hypothetical room full of hypothetical scientists and predict their reaction, you are spouting nonsense.

2. You do not understand what a Hypothesis is.

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1

a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2

: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3

: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

3. Its Radiocarbon dating, and it only works on organic matter up to about 65k years old. When talking about fossilised matter we are talking about things the age of dinosaur bones, which is like 60 million years too old for radiocarbon dating to work on.

4. You imply that science only exists on matters you can fully control. You just eliminated the field of human sciences, congratulations.

Also, i do not think you understand how proving a fact works. You keep marking up sentences of mine and pretend they prove something, when that only proves you have no idea how proving something works.

The proper way to disprove something is this:

1. Vato26 claimed in the first paragraph of his reply that hypothesis are based on past studies.

2. According to The ecological detective: confronting models with data by Ray Hilborn and Marc Mangel(ISBN 978-0-691-03497-3 p.24) a hypothesis is an unproven theory, proposition or supposition thats tentatively accepted to form the basis for further investigation. A claim that is further backed up by Websters dictionary(Neufeldt and Guralnik 1991), which expressly defines the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the lack of support for an explanation in the latter. Both strongly imply that the hypothesis is the foundation a study is built upon, and not a requirement of it.

3. There is also a logical fallacy in his statement insofar as that if studies are required for a hypothesis, and a hypothesis in turn is being required for studies, neither could exist.

4 Conclusion: Considering some very limited investigation in the matter at hand, logical deduction, and his complete lack of sources for his claims, i believe Vato26 to be incorrect on the very core of his hypothesis on the nature of the same.

{mod edit}

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Vrika

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by Vato26
That is false. Server loads =! server populations. Server loads measure how full the servers are. It doesn't measure the number of people on the server. Thus, it doesn't measure server populations.

Scientists also focus on controlling extraneous variables so that their tests measure what they want to measure. There are absolutely no controls set up outside of X-fire. Thus, using X-fire statistics outside of X-fire means they are inherently invalid. And, using invalid data means that your conclusion on that invalid data is invalid. No matter how much you want it to be so, it's still completely invalid.

Also, thanks for proving your agenda via the red. Keep on using your invalid data in any way you can so you can fulfill your self-serving agenda.

Wrong part in red, ofc you can still be right even with faulty data. You can even be right without any kind of data to back you up. Its called coincidence. Its actually quite common, infact the less data you use to form your opinion, and the simpler your thesis, the greater the chance to be right by coincidence <-- hypothesis right there. One example of that would be old greeks postulating the existance of atoms, but there are probably hundreds more. That is false. If you gave that same statement to any form of the scientific community you would be laughed out of the room.

That is your opinion, proof?

No, it's a fact. Having no data to back up a hypothesis makes the hypothesis a pure guess. Hypothesis are built upon past studies. Therefore, they are not purely a guess. Again, you'd be laughed out of the room if you provided a baseless hypothesis (guess) to a any form of scientific community.

Thats also why a proper scientific approach always first and foremost focuses around creating a hypothesis and trying to disprove it by finding a case where it not applies. Exactly because discrediting the source is not proof of a hypothesis being wrong, after all it could still be right by coincidence! If you can find no way to disprove a hypothesis, then it stands. Doesn't mean its right, contrary to popular belief scientist are not so arrogant that they assume they are always right, but its still a valid thesis.

Thesis is also based on past scientific studies or the premise of the current study with controls in place to prevent as much extraneous variables as possible from preventing the scientists from measuring the results that they are aiming to measure. When using X-fire statistics within X-fire, there are controls in place (required usage of X-fire to actually record the hours played). However, there are absolutely no controls in place outside of X-fire when applying X-fire statistics outside of X-fire.

You are confusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_%28academic_document%29 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. Here is a quote for you:

"People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"^[7]^[8] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem."

Sounds exactly like what im talking about, the experimental part is where we just see how it goes by comparing the data from xfire with actual changes like new servers opening/old closing, official numbers etc.

Hypothesis are based on past studies. Studies that have controls built into them to measure the variables that the scientist wants to measure by removing as many of the extraneous variables as possible. There are absolutely no controls present to prevent extraneous variables from interfering with trying to use X-fire statistics outside of the X-fire userbase. Which, makes this a pure guess rather than an educated guess. Thus, it has no validity. That's a fact.

Control is the prime part of measuring statistics. Lack of those controls = lack of any form of validity as there's no controls in place to prevent extraneous variables from altering what the person is trying to measure. That is something that the X-fire Fan brigade can't comprehend.

Ofc having full control helps immensely with the accuracy of statistics, nobody denies that. But if full control is impossible you make do with the next best thing and simply append a proper +- derivation to your data to make people aware of its limitations. If you don't know the derivation you guess it based on the information available, an example would be archelogist judging the age of very old fossilised organic materials, the derivation can be millions of years. And yeah sometimes you can be totally wrong because there where extraneous variables you didn't know about, but that shouldn't prevent you from trying anyway.

You do not understand control when it comes to science. The blue highlighted phrase proves that. Using a +- derivation without actual scientific evidence to back it up is nothing more than an arbitrary guess. Again, further shoving it to the side of guessing rather than science. As to the red highlight, Archeologists use carbon dating, which is quite accurate, and an evolutionary chart that is further validated by carbon dating and geological evidence to back up their science. They don't go nilly-willy guessing that you are trying to claim they do.....

You are trying to apply scientific methods from hard sciences to soft sciences.

Controlled environments and eliminating extraneous variables is good when studying simple human behaviour or interactions. But assuming you took a group of XFire users and non-XFire users into a controlled environment and eliminated all extraneous variables. You might well end up eliminating also the reason why one group started using XFire and the other did not in the first place. You'd have taken the human decision (to play SWTOR or to not to play) out of its normal context, and due to differences between the normal context with XFire users and non-XFire users, any results you'd gain in controlled environment would cease to apply to the groups you just studied when you'd let them out of that controlled environmen and into the open world with all its variables.

No, that's completely false. Extraneous variables are there to mess with the actual variables that scientists want to measure. That is why controls are in place... to prevent as many extraneous variables as possible. To make the claim that the scientist would be eliminating the variable they want to measure because they are controlling their study is completely wrong. It's statistics 101.

When predicting human behaviour in mass scale it's not possible to create the required controlled environments and take every variable into account. You're stuck with using statistics, polls, your own knowledge of human nature. And you can only verify your results with more statistics, polls, observations and inductive reasoning.

First off, you are the one that is saying "every". I said, "as many as possible".

PS. And you've build so large a quote pyramid with so many colors, that there's no way for me to tell who has said what in your discussion. Your point?

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Rocketeer
@Vato

1. You are making a prediction of the behaviour of a hypothetical room full of hypothetical scientists and predict their reaction, you are spouting nonsense. False. Scientists would laugh you out of a room if you tried to present your statement of coincidences without actual proof. Again, you truly do not understand the scientific method.

2. You do not understand what a Hypothesis is.

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1

a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2

: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3

: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Hypothesis is based on past tests and data.

3. Its Radiocarbon dating, and it only works on organic matter up to about 65k years old. When talking about fossilised matter we are talking about things the age of dinosaur bones, which is like 60 million years too old for radiocarbon dating to work on.

4. You imply that science only exists on matters you can fully control. You just eliminated the field of human sciences, congratulations. Again, spouting more falsehoods. Because, I never stated that. Thanks for showing us that you will actively engage in Libel. Who's insulting whom now?

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Rocketeer
Also, i do not think you understand how proving a fact works. You keep marking up sentences of mine and pretend they prove something, when that only proves you have no idea how proving something works.

The proper way to disprove something is this:

1. Vato26 claimed in the first paragraph of his reply that hypothesis are based on past studies.

2. According to The ecological detective: confronting models with data by Ray Hilborn and Marc Mangel(ISBN 978-0-691-03497-3 p.24) a hypothesis is an unproven theory, proposition or supposition thats tentatively accepted to form the basis for further investigation. A claim that is further backed up by Websters dictionary(Neufeldt and Guralnik 1991), which expressly defines the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in the lack of support for an explanation in the latter. Both strongly imply that the hypothesis is the foundation a study is built upon, and not a requirement of it.

3. There is also a logical fallacy in his statement insofar as that if studies are required for a hypothesis, and a hypothesis in turn is being required for studies, neither could exist.

4 Conclusion: Considering some very limited investigation in the matter at hand, logical deduction, and his complete lack of sources for his claims, i believe Vato26 to be incorrect on the very core of his hypothesis on the nature of the same.

[Removed Flaming attempt]

First off, Merrian Webster dictionary does not define words when it comes to the scientific community. Yes, each scientific community has their own phrases and words that are commonly understoond between that community. Words that the common-person would not understand.

Second, that was printed in '97. Science has changed quite a bit since then.

A hypothesis is based on past studies and data. No matter how much you want to deny this, when it comes to the scientific community it is a FACT.

Third, to claim that there is logical fallacy towards someone when no logical fallacy is present is intellectually dishonest.

To add to that, your constant usage of insults against me speaks volumes.

Vrika · January 2012

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Vrika

You are trying to apply scientific methods from hard sciences to soft sciences.
Controlled environments and eliminating extraneous variables is good when studying simple human behaviour or interactions. But assuming you took a group of XFire users and non-XFire users into a controlled environment and eliminated all extraneous variables. You might well end up eliminating also the reason why one group started using XFire and the other did not in the first place. You'd have taken the human decision (to play SWTOR or to not to play) out of its normal context, and due to differences between the normal context with XFire users and non-XFire users, any results you'd gain in controlled environment would cease to apply to the groups you just studied when you'd let them out of that controlled environmen and into the open world with all its variables.

No, that's completely false. Extraneous variables are there to mess with the actual variables that scientists want to measure. That is why controls are in place... to prevent as many extraneous variables as possible. To make the claim that the scientist would be eliminating the variable they want to measure because they are controlling their study is completely wrong. It's statistics 101.

Let's pretend that you want to compare how much XFire users play SWTOR, vs. how much non-XFire users play SWTOR.

Can you give me one example of extraneous variable you'd eliminate, and tell me how you'd do that + why it's okay to eliminate that variable?

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Vrika

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Vrika

You are trying to apply scientific methods from hard sciences to soft sciences.
Controlled environments and eliminating extraneous variables is good when studying simple human behaviour or interactions. But assuming you took a group of XFire users and non-XFire users into a controlled environment and eliminated all extraneous variables. You might well end up eliminating also the reason why one group started using XFire and the other did not in the first place. You'd have taken the human decision (to play SWTOR or to not to play) out of its normal context, and due to differences between the normal context with XFire users and non-XFire users, any results you'd gain in controlled environment would cease to apply to the groups you just studied when you'd let them out of that controlled environmen and into the open world with all its variables.

No, that's completely false. Extraneous variables are there to mess with the actual variables that scientists want to measure. That is why controls are in place... to prevent as many extraneous variables as possible. To make the claim that the scientist would be eliminating the variable they want to measure because they are controlling their study is completely wrong. It's statistics 101.

Let's pretend that you want to compare how much XFire users play SWTOR, vs. how much non-XFire users play SWTOR.

Can you give me one example of extraneous variable you'd eliminate, and tell me how you'd do that + why it's okay to eliminate that variable?

I'm not required to do such as I'm not the one who's trying to apply statistics outside of their intended scope (their scope being within the X-fire userbase). You, and people such as yourself are the ones who are trying to apply these statistics outside of their intended scope. Therefore, it is upon you to provide evidence to support your standing and show that these statistics do not lose validity because they are outside their intended scope.

Anyways, I can name quite a few extraneous variables that invalidates these X-fire statistics when used outside their intended scope:

What percent of the total gaming population actually uses X-fire?
What percent of the SWTOR gaming population actually uses X-fire?
It has been shown that SWTOR has problems being recorded by X-fire.

Those are only a few. If I had more time to sit and think on it, I could come up with a whole lot more.

Anyways, as I stated, the burden of proof is upon you since you are the ones trying to apply X-fire statistics outside their intended scope.

Metentso · January 2012

Steady decline going on, yesterday highest in the week, 8500 players and 48.650h, 10.400 less than last sunday.

toddze · January 2012

The x-fire stats have some validity to them, its shown trends in every game, its been righ on target in the past. It does show a rough trend. But you dont need x-fire to see that game is dropping subs. You also dont need a crystal ball to see where its going. Theres been ample amount of these over simplified mmo's released , you see the trend clear as day from them. This game has nothing to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Its as predictable as the sun rising.

Distaste · January 2012

Originally posted by Vato26

I'm not required to do such as I'm not the one who's trying to apply statistics outside of their intended scope (their scope being within the X-fire userbase). You, and people such as yourself are the ones who are trying to apply these statistics outside of their intended scope. Therefore, it is upon you to provide evidence to support your standing and show that these statistics do not lose validity because they are outside their intended scope.

Anyways, I can name quite a few extraneous variables that invalidates these X-fire statistics when used outside their intended scope:

What percent of the total gaming population actually uses X-fire?

What percent of the SWTOR gaming population actually uses X-fire?

It has been shown that SWTOR has problems being recorded by X-fire.

Those are only a few. If I had more time to sit and think on it, I could come up with a whole lot more.

Anyways, as I stated, the burden of proof is upon you since you are the ones trying to apply X-fire statistics outside their intended scope.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how SWTOR is doing based on Xfire. We aren't saying that Xfire is the greatest data source, nor are we saying any of the conclusions are infallible or 100% accurate. If this thread were about how SWTOR is doing based on infallible data and we used Xfire then you could come in "Show me real prroof" a blazing, BUT we aren't. If you don't like Xfire or it's statisics then get out, this discussion is not for you.

Just to drag this on further since you'll stay here continually shouting "PROOF!!!!", it's already been shown several times that Xfire is fairly accurate outside of it's intended scope. It has accurately shown population trends in WAR, AoC, RIFT, AION, and many others. What you need to do now is explain how Xfire could be accurate for those games but isn't for SWTOR. Oh and I'll expect data/proof from reliable sources :P.

AG-Vuk · January 2012

Originally posted by toddze
The x-fire stats have some validity to them, its shown trends in every game, its been righ on target in the past. It does show a rough trend. But you dont need x-fire to see that game is dropping subs. You also dont need a crystal ball to see where its going. Theres been ample amount of these over simplified mmo's released , you see the trend clear as day from them. This game has nothing to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Its as predictable as the sun rising.

You're correct in that it shows a trend , to a degree. A lot of what you say is valid as opinion . X-fire though as a statisical indicator is extremely poor and therefore higly subjective only because the sample size and population is not controlled. I always get a chuckle when I see these posts , because simply . Numbers are always open to manipulation and can be used to show anything one desires. Population drops are common in MMO's , I'd say a 20 to 30 % drop can be expected in a good game after release , more then 50 % and I suspect the game will have real problems. IMO. Without the release of sub numbers it's impossible to estimate the health of a game. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that the majority of games peak at release, there are always exceptions. The real bar is where they sit at the 6 mo , 1 year stage then 2y and 5 y benchmarks. ( for MMO's )

teoyaomiqui · January 2012

Originally posted by AG-Vuk

Originally posted by toddze

The x-fire stats have some validity to them, its shown trends in every game, its been righ on target in the past. It does show a rough trend. But you dont need x-fire to see that game is dropping subs. You also dont need a crystal ball to see where its going. Theres been ample amount of these over simplified mmo's released , you see the trend clear as day from them. This game has nothing to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Its as predictable as the sun rising.

You're correct in that it shows a trend , to a degree. A lot of what you say is valid as opinion . X-fire though as a statisical indicator is extremely poor and therefore higly subjective only because the sample size and population is not controlled. I always get a chuckle when I see these posts , because simply . Numbers are always open to manipulation and can be used to show anything one desires. Population drops are common in MMO's , I'd say a 20 to 30 % drop can be expected in a good game after release , more then 50 % and I suspect the game will have real problems. IMO. Without the release of sub numbers it's impossible to estimate the health of a game. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that the majority of games peak at release, there are always exceptions. The real bar is where they sit at the 6 mo , 1 year stage then 2y and 5 y benchmarks. ( for MMO's )

I don't see how it is true for a great new MMO, but I agree that it is true for a medicore MMO.

Example how I see medicore MMO subscribtion model works: I buy it, i think, well it's alright, I play it for a month, i drop it, tell friends, the game is alright, but nothing interesting.

Example of how I see great new MMO would go: I buy it, i like it, i resub, I tell my friends, what a great game it is, they try it, sub numbers go up.

But you are right on another topic, the real bar is at 6-12month, and with numbers dropping each week, i don't think they will break 12 month bar with positive balance.

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Metentso
Steady decline going on, yesterday highest in the week, 8500 players and 48.650h, 10.400 less than last sunday.

Only within X-fire.

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by Distaste

Originally posted by Vato26

I'm not required to do such as I'm not the one who's trying to apply statistics outside of their intended scope (their scope being within the X-fire userbase). You, and people such as yourself are the ones who are trying to apply these statistics outside of their intended scope. Therefore, it is upon you to provide evidence to support your standing and show that these statistics do not lose validity because they are outside their intended scope.

Anyways, I can name quite a few extraneous variables that invalidates these X-fire statistics when used outside their intended scope:

What percent of the total gaming population actually uses X-fire?

What percent of the SWTOR gaming population actually uses X-fire?

It has been shown that SWTOR has problems being recorded by X-fire.

Those are only a few. If I had more time to sit and think on it, I could come up with a whole lot more.

Anyways, as I stated, the burden of proof is upon you since you are the ones trying to apply X-fire statistics outside their intended scope.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss how SWTOR is doing based on Xfire. We aren't saying that Xfire is the greatest data source, nor are we saying any of the conclusions are infallible or 100% accurate. If this thread were about how SWTOR is doing based on infallible data and we used Xfire then you could come in "Show me real prroof" a blazing, BUT we aren't. If you don't like Xfire or it's statisics then get out, this discussion is not for you.

Just to drag this on further since you'll stay here continually shouting "PROOF!!!!", it's already been shown several times that Xfire is fairly accurate outside of it's intended scope. It has accurately shown population trends in WAR, AoC, RIFT, AION, and many others. What you need to do now is explain how Xfire could be accurate for those games but isn't for SWTOR. Oh and I'll expect data/proof from reliable sources :P.

Blue: No, I will not. Because the X-fire fans are trying to use this outside of the scope of the X-fire statistics. Which is improper use of statistical analysis. Thus, I am free to speak up on the facts that they are improperly using these statistics.

Red: No it hasn't. I have called for actual graphical proof with actual data. The X-fire fans never provided them. So, no, you have proved no such thing.

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by teoyaomiqui

Originally posted by AG-Vuk

Originally posted by toddze

The x-fire stats have some validity to them, its shown trends in every game, its been righ on target in the past. It does show a rough trend. But you dont need x-fire to see that game is dropping subs. You also dont need a crystal ball to see where its going. Theres been ample amount of these over simplified mmo's released , you see the trend clear as day from them. This game has nothing to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Its as predictable as the sun rising.

You're correct in that it shows a trend , to a degree. A lot of what you say is valid as opinion . X-fire though as a statisical indicator is extremely poor and therefore higly subjective only because the sample size and population is not controlled. I always get a chuckle when I see these posts , because simply . Numbers are always open to manipulation and can be used to show anything one desires. Population drops are common in MMO's , I'd say a 20 to 30 % drop can be expected in a good game after release , more then 50 % and I suspect the game will have real problems. IMO. Without the release of sub numbers it's impossible to estimate the health of a game. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that the majority of games peak at release, there are always exceptions. The real bar is where they sit at the 6 mo , 1 year stage then 2y and 5 y benchmarks. ( for MMO's )

I don't see how it is true for a great new MMO, but I agree that it is true for a medicore MMO.

Example how I see medicore MMO subscribtion model works: I buy it, i think, well it's alright, I play it for a month, i drop it, tell friends, the game is alright, but nothing interesting.

Example of how I see great new MMO would go: I buy it, i like it, i resub, I tell my friends, what a great game it is, they try it, sub numbers go up.

But you are right on another topic, the real bar is at 6-12month, and with numbers dropping each week, i don't think they will break 12 month bar with positive balance.

Yet, that is your opinion. I, and many others are enjoying the game, will resub, and will tell our friends our experiences in the game and why we enjoy it. Just because you think a game is mediocre does not mean the game is actually mediocre.

As to your "6-12 month" bar.... well, we've all seen these before. The doom 'n gloomers first said "1 month"... and, when that didn't happen, now you are all saying "6 to 12 months". And, if that doesn't happen, then you'll spout out "18 to 24 months".

It's a continual cycle that has been seen for countless MMORPGs that the doom 'n gloomers hate.

sanosukex · January 2012

Originally posted by Vato26

Yet, that is your opinion. I, and many others are enjoying the game, will resub, and will tell our friends our experiences in the game and why we enjoy it. Just because you think a game is mediocre does not mean the game is actually mediocre.

As to your "6-12 month" bar.... well, we've all seen these before. The doom 'n gloomers first said "1 month"... and, when that didn't happen, now you are all saying "6 to 12 months". And, if that doesn't happen, then you'll spout out "18 to 24 months".

It's a continual cycle that has been seen for countless MMORPGs that the doom 'n gloomers hate.

doom and gloomers said months 3-6 not month 1 try again..

and yes the game is mediocre sorry.. and yes its my opinion and shared by many others but if people can't see this game is mediocre I feel sad for the future of this genre..

Teala · January 2012

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by sanosukex

Originally posted by Vato26

Yet, that is your opinion. I, and many others are enjoying the game, will resub, and will tell our friends our experiences in the game and why we enjoy it. Just because you think a game is mediocre does not mean the game is actually mediocre.

As to your "6-12 month" bar.... well, we've all seen these before. The doom 'n gloomers first said "1 month"... and, when that didn't happen, now you are all saying "6 to 12 months". And, if that doesn't happen, then you'll spout out "18 to 24 months".

It's a continual cycle that has been seen for countless MMORPGs that the doom 'n gloomers hate.

doom and gloomers said months 3-6 not month 1 try again..

and yes the game is mediocre sorry.. and yes its my opinion and shared by many others but if people can't see this game is mediocre I feel sad for the future of this genre..

Some Doom and gloomers started claiming one month a week before launch. Then there was the "massive exodous" thread with claimed xfire support three weeks after launch. Of course there were scattered claims that the game would be free to play in a month etc. Trolls will say anything the more outrageous the better. People who know nothing but speak often are now moving from 2-3 months to 6-12 months. None of it has anything to do with facts.

Kinda like the people claiming this game would have 4 million players within its first month of launch and kill WoW huh?

sanosukex · January 2012

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by sanosukex

Originally posted by Vato26

Yet, that is your opinion. I, and many others are enjoying the game, will resub, and will tell our friends our experiences in the game and why we enjoy it. Just because you think a game is mediocre does not mean the game is actually mediocre.

As to your "6-12 month" bar.... well, we've all seen these before. The doom 'n gloomers first said "1 month"... and, when that didn't happen, now you are all saying "6 to 12 months". And, if that doesn't happen, then you'll spout out "18 to 24 months".

It's a continual cycle that has been seen for countless MMORPGs that the doom 'n gloomers hate.

doom and gloomers said months 3-6 not month 1 try again..

and yes the game is mediocre sorry.. and yes its my opinion and shared by many others but if people can't see this game is mediocre I feel sad for the future of this genre..

Some Doom and gloomers started claiming one month a week before launch. Then there was the "massive exodous" thread with claimed xfire support three weeks after launch. Of course there were scattered claims that the game would be free to play in a month etc. Trolls will say anything the more outrageous the better. People who know nothing but speak often are now moving from 2-3 months to 6-12 months. None of it has anything to do with facts.

said it before but ill say it again anyone with any sense could say this game would do ok for at LEAST 3 months.. by then people have time to get a least a couple 50s and experience pretty much all the game has to offer.. at month 3 onward its really going to depend what bioware can pull out with 1.2 if its nothing more than a new warzone, new flashpoints, and an operation and 1 new planet I can't see this game doing to well from month 3 onward... again just my opinion but honestly is this what we come to expect from such a high profile AAA game? again if so this genre is run its course at least for me...

Vato26 · January 2012

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by sanosukex

Originally posted by Vato26

Yet, that is your opinion. I, and many others are enjoying the game, will resub, and will tell our friends our experiences in the game and why we enjoy it. Just because you think a game is mediocre does not mean the game is actually mediocre.

As to your "6-12 month" bar.... well, we've all seen these before. The doom 'n gloomers first said "1 month"... and, when that didn't happen, now you are all saying "6 to 12 months". And, if that doesn't happen, then you'll spout out "18 to 24 months".

It's a continual cycle that has been seen for countless MMORPGs that the doom 'n gloomers hate.

doom and gloomers said months 3-6 not month 1 try again..

and yes the game is mediocre sorry.. and yes its my opinion and shared by many others but if people can't see this game is mediocre I feel sad for the future of this genre..

Some Doom and gloomers started claiming one month a week before launch. Then there was the "massive exodous" thread with claimed xfire support three weeks after launch. Of course there were scattered claims that the game would be free to play in a month etc. Trolls will say anything the more outrageous the better. People who know nothing but speak often are now moving from 2-3 months to 6-12 months. None of it has anything to do with facts.

Exactly. It's interesting that some of them forgot the 1 month claims.

Vhaln · January 2012

Hey, has anyone noticed the latest numbers? They're not exactly peaking anymore. Even Rift was still hanging on at a month, but TOR is practically faceplanting, and XFire proves it. Even faster than I predicted.

</>

watchawatcha · January 2012

It's number 5 in the ranks right now with no change in 12 days. That's good isn't it?

/confused

Howdy, Stranger!

Seems like the game has peaked on XFire

Comments

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Seems like the game has peaked on XFire

Comments

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

Definition of HYPOTHESIS